tell me the truth: singer not the song?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Joined
Sep 29, 2001
Messages
1,749
ahum an ancient stones song singer not the song is about that its all about the singer not the song. what do you think, yeah yeah with u2 i mean.

is it the band or the songs that you dig. i.e. when you listen to a song is it the beauty of the song itself or the fact that its being played by u2 that you really dig.

any thoughts welcomed. i personnaly even like it when u2 sings with the corrs so it must be something about the band/bono as well and niot just the songs. i think i wouldnt like it when the corrs were to coiver an in\credible song such as october.

ah whatever


------------------
~stadtmueller
 
You mean when listening to U2, to we like the musical part or do we prefer the voice?

Personally, most of the time i like both. If not, then:

in the "80's" U2 i think i like the voice just a notch over the music. Bono's voice really makes the songs IMO in that era.

in the "90's" U2 the music is a notch over the voice. Sonically it's amazing.

For example - i don't know if i would like Discotheque if it wasn't for that Edge riff.
Or, Angel of Harlem just isn't the same without Bono's voice flying all over the place.



[This message has been edited by U2girl (edited 05-05-2002).]
 
When I listen to U2, I automatically love it because I absolutely adore Bono's voice. He could sing what's on a cereal box and I'd love it. However, listening to covers of U2 songs is what really made me appreciate just how great the songs themselves are. Another artist's interpretation of the song strips away an element of familiarity and in effect, makes the quality songwriting stand out on it's own. Great examples of that are Elvis Costello's cover of "Please" and Cassandra Wilson's of "Love is Blindness."
 
i think maybe what originally attracted me to U2 was the songs!that may sound obvious, but i didnt look at Bono and go WOW!thats always the way with me anyway,if i like someones personality i start to think thyre goodlooking...or they turn goodlooking..

anywhoo,i went WOW!when bono sang,when they played etc, and now i think its a bit of both.like if bono was an $%^hole and was in a boyband or something id have no time for him.

hang on,i know im sounding like an idiot here rying to explain the songs and the band separately, and *lightbulb* im after figuring out why>theyre inextricably linked. you cant have one without the other.It just wouldnt be the same!

smile.gif


Ps sorry about that whole wee rant there feel free to ignore!
 
I love U2 because I love their music, not vice versa; there's no real guarantee that I'll like the song just because it's a U2 song. But on the other hand, the songs that I love/like do seem special because I've got special feelings for the band.
 
It think It is the Band more so for me. The songs are great but when done by others they sometimes sound like crap. Just listen to Stay, a very good song. When Bono sings it it brings out emotion and just makes it a great song. When someone like Billy Corgan does it it sounds like a piece of shite.

I guess what i am trying to say is Bono writes brilliant songs for him and the band. I believe he is capable of writing for other people (when love comes..., the wanderer) but some of the songs that he writes for U2 need to only be done by U2.
 
Originally posted by The Arms of America:
When someone like Billy Corgan does it it sounds like a piece of shite.


That's because Billy Corgan sounds like "a piece of shite."
biggrin.gif


He's one of those people that belong in the "Bob Dylan" club. Great song-writer, fantastic musician - but he should've never opened his mouth to sing.
 
Back
Top Bottom